ExpressivityBench: Can LLMs Communicate Implicitly?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human communication is often implicit, conveying tone, identity, and intent beyond literal meanings. While large language models have achieved strong performance on explicit tasks such as summarization and reasoning, their capacity for expressivity, or implicit communication, remains underexplored. We introduce \textbf{ExpressivityBench}, a framework for evaluating the expressivity of LLMs using information-theoretic communication models. Our approach quantifies how well LLM-generated text communicates target properties without explicit mention, across nine tasks spanning emotion, identity, and tone. To enable scalable and reproducible evaluation, we employ LLM-based graders validated against human judgments. Our results reveal that while models are adept at expressing affective content, they struggle with sociolinguistic signals, lagging behind human baselines. This study provides a necessary step to evaluate human-like implicit communication, with implications for applications such as education, mental health support, and socially-aware dialogue systems. We provide code and data for our benchmark alongside our paper.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".